Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

ISSN: 0143-4632 (Print) 1747-7557 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmmm20

Can language classrooms take the multilingual

turn?

Myriam Paquet-Gauthier & Suzie Beaulieu

To cite this article: Myriam Paquet-Gauthier & Suzie Beaulieu (2016) Can language classrooms
take the multilingual turn?, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37:2,
167-183, DOI: 10.1080/01434632.2015.1049180

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1049180

Published online: 06 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 234

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmmm20

Download by: [187.137.12.254] Date: 22 April 2016, At: 11:58

 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 2016
Vol. 37, No. 2, 167–183, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2015.1049180

Can language classrooms take the multilingual turn?

Myriam Paquet-Gauthier* and Suzie Beaulieu

Langues, linguistique et traduction, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada

(Received 30 August 2014; accepted 25 April 2015)

For the past three decades, momentum has gathered in favour of a multilingual turn in
second language acquisition research and teaching. Multicompetence has been
proposed to replace nativeness and monolingualism to measure L2 learners’ success.
This proposed shift has not made its way into L2 teaching settings. The language
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

presented to L2 learners is a set of monolingual, standard norms often removed from

actual target language practices, implying that these linguistic features are adequate for
all situations. We propose that the multilingual shift has not taken place in practice
because language features associated with monolingual nativeness are necessary in
many of the communicative situations L2 users encounter. Adapting the concepts of
communicative distance and immediacy in order to integrate multilingual commu-
nications, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate how these situations and their
oral or written realisations are located on a pluridimensional conceptional continuum.
We illustrate how monolingual standard norms and code-meshing practices represent
the model’s most distant and immediate communicative ends, respectively. We argue
that traditional mono/multilingual and native/non-native oppositions can be reframed
in order to become legitimate models for L2 classrooms.
Keywords: native/non-native speaker norm; multilingualism; sociolinguistics

Introduction
For almost three decades, researchers have challenged the monolingual native speaker
yardstick when it comes to evaluating second language (L2) learners’ performance,
competence or language processing abilities. Their call for a more positive view of
multilingualism,1 as exemplified by the concept of multicompetence has, however,
remained largely theoretical and has had little impact on current L2 teaching practices. In
this article, some of the reasons that have made this concept hard to operationalise and
implement in classrooms are highlighted. We propose to look at language from a different
perspective in order to integrate into L2 teaching diversity inherent to individual
languages, and diversity arising from multilingualism. We draw from a model developed
by Koch and Oesterreicher (2001) as well as from research in plurilingualism and
sociolinguistics in order to inform the debate over the multilingual turn.

A brief genealogy of the multilingual turn

In recent years, momentum has gathered in favour of a multilingual turn in L2 acquisition
research and teaching (May 2013; Ortega 2010, 2013). This movement came about in

*Corresponding author. Email: myriam.paquet-gauthier.1@ulaval.ca

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 168 M. Paquet-Gauthier and S. Beaulieu

reaction against the chief concerns of mainstream (i.e. cognitive) second language
acquisition (SLA) researchers to determine whether, how or why non-native speakers
differ from monolingual native speakers in their L2 knowledge, performance, processing
and ultimate attainment (Abrahamsson and Hyltenstam 2009; Bylund, Abrahamsson, and
Hyltenstam 2012; DeKeyser 2013; Granena and Long 2013). Multicompetence, a concept
coined by Cook (1991) to refer to the coexistence of more than one language in the same
mind, was proposed to replace the deficit view of L2 competence this body of research
has created and maintained. In view of mounting evidence that multilingual speakers are
different from monolinguals on a cognitive (e.g. Jarvis and Pavlenko 2008; Kroll and
Dussias 2013) and sociolinguistic level (e.g. Rampton 1995; Leung, Harris, and Rampton
1997), proponents of the multilingual turn have questioned the native speaker benchmark
as it entails that nativelikeness is the implicit norm to be attained by L2 learners.
To counter the monolingual bias that portrays L2 learners as deficient speakers
(interlanguage or limited proficiency speakers, speakers who perform a failed approx-
imation of native language system, etc. See Ortega’s account [2010] for numerous
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

examples of biased terminology), researchers have voiced the need for a change of
paradigm in favour of terms that better reflect the dynamic and positive nature of
multilingualism. Although using different frameworks (e.g. complexity theory [Larsen-
Freeman 2013], bilingual turn [Ortega 2010, 2013]), they have proposed to replace
acquisition with development, interference with crosslinguistic influence, and have
questioned the concepts of ultimate attainment and fossilisation. The change of
terminology was felt to be necessary to highlight the view that the multicompetent
speaker’s linguistic system is constantly evolving and consists in a supersystem with no
discrete boundaries. However, this new terminology (e.g. bidirectional transfer, cross-
linguistic transfer, borrowing, shifting, transferring) nonetheless suggests interactions
between two or more systems (Hall, Cheng, and Carlson 2006), which demonstrates that
the old conception of language is deep-rooted and still prevails.
From a pedagogical perspective, efforts to move away from the monolingual norm in
the classroom have included proposals such as Focus on Multilingualism (Cenoz and
Gorter 2011) and Awareness to language/Éveil aux langues (Hawkins 1974; Dagenais
et al. 2007), which takes into account the whole linguistic knowledge of multilingual
language learners to underscore the connections between different languages and thus
increase language awareness. Another pedagogical proposal is receptive multilingualism
(Meissner 2003), with intercomprehension as its main objective. This approach allows for
learners to have varying degrees of proficiency in several languages in order to take part
in the intercultural dynamics of the European Union context.
However, these proposals represent the exceptions in pedagogical approaches: Cenoz
and Gorter (2011) and Cummins (2007) point out that, in general, little is being done in
L2 classrooms to promote bilingualism or multilingualism. Customarily, after an initial
period of tolerance for students to draw on their first language (L1) to mediate learning
processes (ask for clarification, receive instructions, etc.), another follows in which L2-
only usage is expected. In addition, teachers’ efforts are directed towards promoting L2
usage that bears no L1 influences (pronunciation, syntax, etc.). It follows that the
‘language classroom proposes to develop monolingual competence a second time around
in life’ (Ortega 2013, 33).
Thus, although the multilingual shift has triggered several research opportunities, to
date it has had little if any effect on the way L2s are taught, or how L2 learners’
performance is evaluated. The idiosyncratic nature of multicompetence (Lüdi and Py
2009; Larsen-Freeman 2013, 79) still poses a challenge as to how standardised assessment
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 169

criteria in L2 contexts could be developed and used, and proposals to date (e.g. Brown
2013) are often disconnected from today’s realities in regard to classroom size and
diversity (see Leung, Harris, and Rampton [1997] forma discussion on these issues).
Moreover, while the multilingual turn proposes to eliminate the monolingual norm and
replace it with multicompetence, the latter is still so vaguely defined (‘the coexistence of
more than one language in the same mind’ [Cook 2007, 21]), that it has very little
operative value in the classroom. In short, not only has this turn ‘failed to use the findings
on multilinguals’ language knowledge to reconsider some primary theoretical assumptions
framing these efforts’ (Hall, Cheng, and Carlson 2006, 25), it also has not induced major
changes in teaching practices so far.

A note on terminology
Before proceeding further, we would like to introduce a few terminological precisions. We
follow Larsen-Freeman (see e.g. 2007) in her use of language development rather than
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

language acquisition because the former makes room for new language knowledge brought
about by new experiences while the latter suggests that learning – whether of L1 or any
additional language – is a finite process. Similarly, Lüdi and Py (2009) have argued that ‘a
language competence will never be “reached”: its development is characterised by the
diversity and complexity of the contexts in which it is mobilised, by the specialisation of the
resources used, and by the increasingly demanding expectations it engenders’ (156).
To circumvent questions of language dominance and chronological order of learning
pertaining to additional language development (see e.g. Hammarberg 2010) which are not
the focus of this contribution, we propose to use Lx instead of L2 or L3, where ‘x’
represents any language (or dialect) acquired after the first.2 In this way, our discussion is
not limited to bilingualism or trilingualism.
Our approach to multilingualism is rooted in sociolinguistics: by language, we refer
to the socio-historical construct (langue in Saussurean terms), and by linguistic
repertoire, to the language system in the speaker’s mind. In our view, this repertoire
presents no boundaries between languages, and its constituents can be combined almost
endlessly to create ‘hybrid’ utterances.3 Instead of the widely used umbrella term
codeswitching to refer to these hybrid forms, we have opted for code-meshing – albeit
with a slightly different meaning than originally proposed by Michael-Luna and
Canagarajah (2007) – where code covers both language and dialect and as such does
not imply that it is composed of a finite number of constituents or structures. It thus
encompasses a wider range of linguistic configurations, including semantic and syntactic
influences. Indeed, as Gardner-Chloros (2009) emphasises, ‘clear-cut changes, such as the
term “switching” implies, may occur in bilingual and bidialectal speech but they are only
one of many possibilities’ (12, author’s emphasis). Such sharp distinctions between one
code and another may indeed be hard to determine (e.g. Eyquem-Lebon 2010; Kühl
2011), and would moreover imply that languages and dialects are separate entities in the
speaker’s mind.

New perspectives on the multilingual turn

Multicompetence was initially proposed to counter the idea that ‘correctness is
nativeness’, and introduce the possibility that speakers of an Lx may not use the native
speaker norm but still be considered speakers in their own, multicompetent, right.
However, accepting multicompetence as a new yardstick only shifts the problem to that of
 170 M. Paquet-Gauthier and S. Beaulieu

defining what would be a ‘correct’ form of multicompetent communication. For example,

Li (2011, 371) proposes that ‘different languages may interact in producing well-formed …
mixed-code utterances’, but leaves unspecified the rules according to which these would be
considered ‘well-formed’. It also conveniently brushes aside the fact that both multilinguals
and monolinguals are multicontextual communicative experts (Hall, Cheng, and Carlson
2006) – or multicompetent individuals – and as such, have to face a very wide variety of
communicative situations that call for different usage norms. And, at times, the only
acceptable and expected usage is monolingual, standard usage. Receptive and productive
knowledge of monolingual usage is thus a non-negligible asset for multilinguals. In order to
reconcile the monolingual and multilingual competence theoretical divide, we have to take
a step back and determine in which situations monolingual or multilingual usage is
appropriate. This entails addressing the question of the diversity of language usage4 in
function of communicative contexts.
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

Language teaching and the ideology of the standard

Research in sociolinguistics has demonstrated that L1 teaching is pervaded with the
ideology of the standard (Milroy 2001; Gadet and Guérin 2008). This ideology
presupposes that a single form of language – usually its written norms (Guérin 2008) –
is adequate for all communicative situations. Usage that does not correspond to this
standard is considered as having inferior value, and is therefore not worth teaching. Social,
geographical, historical or situational diversity of usage intrinsic to languages is simply
evacuated, or portrayed as being flawed. ‘Correct language’ is thus ‘standard (ideal,
idealised) language’. The same applies to Lx classes (Auger 2002; Etienne and Sax 2009;
Mougeon, Nadasdi, and Rehner 2002), where the implicit message conveyed to students is
that native speakers only speak according to this standard, and that to develop native-like
competence is to master the standard (written) norms of the language. What is not standard
is incorrect, and consequently, non-native-like. Hence, a uniform image of language is
transmitted to students. Although proponents of the multilingual turn oppose multi-
competence to a native or monolingual norm, the only diversity they appear to consider is
the one arising from the knowledge of two or more standard uniform languages. Diversity
of usage intrinsic to each language is not addressed: this monolithic view of each of the
languages a multicompetent speaker knows is also, in our view, an expression of the
ideology of the standard.
Language teaching rests on the idea that standard is equated with correctness and
respect of the rules of written language, and non-standard with orality and incorrectness.
As Guérin (2011) emphasises, ‘in order to maintain a homogeneous image of language
where a single valid form is opposed to other faulty and incorrect forms, the traditional
dichotomy between oral and written is used’ (52, our translation).
Even among linguists, there is a certain amount of terminological confusion as to how
to refer to utterances that do not respect standard grammar: for English alone, there is
colloquial, vernacular, informal, oral, non-standard, etc. At any rate, the use of binary
oppositions like standard vs. non-standard, written vs. oral or formal vs. informal remains
problematic because it falls short of describing the language used in most communicative
situations (e.g. online chat, emails to superiors or colleagues, ordering at a fast-food
counter or inquiring about the menu at a fancy restaurant). Moreover, binary oppositions
perpetuate the notion that there is a ‘correct’ usage from which others deviate.
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 171

Conceptional aspect of communicative situations

An alternative to the impasse brought by these binary oppositions has been proposed by
Koch and Oesterreicher (1985 and 2011 in German, 2001 for an article in French), whose
approach is based on analyses of vast corpora of romance languages and German. The
authors distinguish between the medial and conceptional aspects of communication.
While the medial aspect refers to the code used to communicate (dichotomous opposition
between phonic and graphic), the conceptional aspect refers to the way the communica-
tion is conceptualised in the speaker’s mind, ranging on a continuum from communic-
ative immediacy to communicative distance.5 This conceptional aspect is central to our
discussion on how communicative situations influence multicompetent speaker’s choice
of linguistic features.
Koch and Oesterreicher (2001) propose that linguistic feature choices differ
progressively from one extreme of the continuum to the other, based on the speaker’s
assessment of the communicative situations. The following examples illustrate different
situations, from the most immediate to the most distant.
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

Figure 1 presents the articulation between the medial (‘code’) and conceptional
aspects, and Table 1 gives some parameters used to assess the conceptional profile of a
communicative situation.6
Because distance is generally (but not necessarily) associated with written language, it
has been termed conceptional scripturality (scripturalité conceptionnelle, or konzeptio-
nelle Schriftlifkeit); similarly, communicative immediacy has been termed conceptional
orality (oralité conceptionnelle, or konzeptionelle Mündlichkeit). The fact that there are
clear affinities between phonic code and conceptional orality, and graphic code and
conceptional scripturality is illustrated by the maximum width of each medium at the
continuum’s extremes. In order to avoid confusion, we use (conceptional) immediacy and
distance to refer to conceptional orality and scripturality, respectively, and reserve oral
and written for the medial aspect.
Koch and Oesterreicher establish their model on their corpus-based observation that
linguistic features of conceptional immediacy and distance are explained in part by
contextual and situational factors, and by language-specific discursive traditions and
conventions of written texts (e.g. realisations of referential anchoring vary between
languages). In addition, they contend that the conceptional aspect is also governed by
universal principles of immediacy and distance, in that communicative strategies are
determined by deixis, i.e. fundamental factors of cognition such as spatial and temporal

Conceponal Conceponal
immedicacy distance

Figure 1. Continuum of conceptional immediacy and distance.

Source: Koch and Oesterreicher (2001).
 172 M. Paquet-Gauthier and S. Beaulieu

Table 1. Parameters used to characterise the communicative attitude of speakers relative to

contextual and situational factors.

Conceptional immediacy Conceptional distance

Private communication Public communication

Familiarity between speaker and hearer
High emotionality
Context embeddedness
Referential situation embeddedness
Spatial or temporal copresence
Intense communicative cooperation
Dialogue
Spontaneous communication
etc.
Source: Koch and Oesterreicher (2001).
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016
No familiarity between speaker and hearer
Low emotionality
Situational and actional detachment
Referential situation detachment
Spatial, temporal separation
Minimal communicative cooperation
Monologue
Prepared/elaborate communication
etc.

orientation, endophora or exophora, and by referentialisation and predication (p. 587–

588). Dewaele’s (2001a) thorough and thoughtful literature review on that topic supports
these premises.
Conceptional immediacy, or language of immediacy, may be characterised by the
‘here and now’. The closer to this extreme of the continuum, the more communicative
productions are based on dialogic principles of intense cooperation. Discourse coherence
and referential precision are primarily achieved by the creative use of linguistic resources
and by multiple contextualisation (gestures, exophoric pronouns and anaphoras,
pragmatic markers, clarification requests, etc.). Lexical diversity is low, and left and
right dislocation are frequent features. Because spontaneous discourse production is
online (whether through phonic or graphic code), traces of reformulation cannot be erased
and syntactic complexity is characteristically achieved by juxtaposition of sentences. In
context of immediacy, holophrastic expressions reach their referential target and are
inappropriate only when measured by communicative distance criteria. As Crystal (2001,
29) observes (though he uses the traditional dichotomy written vs. speech where we
would use distance vs. immediacy), ‘the situations of e-mail, chatgroups and virtual
worlds, though expressed through the medium of writing, display several of the core
properties of speech’. These dialogic principles may apply to real dialogues or assumed
dialogic situations, such as an author’s imagined audience. Hence, intercomprehension is
assessed by the participants’ perceived complicity or perceived shared implicit knowledge
of the situation, whether by physical and/or temporal copresence or by extratextual shared
references (Guérin 2011, 46–47).
On the other hand, conceptional distance, or language of distance, is characterised by
situational and actional detachment, and monologic principles. In order to maintain
discourse coherence, it is necessary to use precise wording, and endophoras. In addition,
syntactically complex structures usually present clear semantic hierarchy, such as
subordination. As a result of the intense planning communicative distance requires,
traces of reformulation may be erased in writing, or absent in oral production. Because it
is not possible to receive spontaneous feedback from the hearer to evaluate intercompre-
hension, the use of intra-discourse references is important, and the end-product of
conceptional distance is as precise and concise as possible. Participants plan their
production on what is assumed to be shared by the largest number, and what is shared is a
form of standard language. Thus, discourse marked by conceptional distance requires a
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 173

certain stability of usage norms precisely to ensure intercomprehension across time and
distance.
Koch and Oesterreicher (2001) state, however, that not all literate individuals who are
in regular contact with conceptional distance are able to fully use the potential of
elaboration and planning that a language of distance allows, adding that ‘the problem lies
in the discrepancy between communicative intentions and their effective conceptional
performance’ (601, our translation). Indeed, even literate individuals may experience
difficulties in producing elaborate language even if they have good receptive knowledge
of it: no speaker possesses the language in all its possibilities. As recent work by Rehner
on French-immersion graduates (e.g. 2010 and 2011) illustrates, a speaker’s ability to
navigate the continuum is strongly tied to the type, frequency, diversity, and intensity of
language experiences in which he engages. This view is consistent with the usage-based
approach of Hall, Cheng, and Carlson, 226), where language knowledge is:

… comprised of dynamic constellations of linguistic resources, the shapes and meanings of

Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

which emerge from continual interaction between internal, domain-general cognitive

constraints on the one hand and one’s pragmatic pursuits in his or her everyday worlds on
the other, that is through language use.

The most obvious advantage of the communicative immediacy-distance model is the

absence of superior value granted per se to any point on the continuum, as
the appropriateness of language features is determined by the conceptional parameters
of the communicative situation. Yet, the use of ‘the’ standard form or usage has been
presented and promoted as suitable for all situations (Guérin 2011, 51), and regarded as
hierarchically superior to any other forms or usage. But once the binary opposition
between correct and incorrect is abandoned in favour of the communicative immediacy-
distance continuum, it appears clearly that this standard is but one form or usage suited
for situations presenting a certain number of conceptional distance parameters. It is thus,
as Guérin (2008) argues, a ‘situated variety’. Teaching only this variety limits the
students’ ability to meet the demands of different communicative situations and leaves
them feeling the inadequacy of the language they know when faced with real-life
situations (see e.g. Durán and McCool 2003).

Multilingual usage and communicative situations

The immediacy-distance continuum approach developed by Koch and Oesterreicher
(2001) provides a sound starting point to represent the scope of communicative
behaviours multilingual individuals may adopt in different situations. As with mono-
linguals, the area of the continuum multilinguals cover is determined by the type,
frequency, diversity and intensity of language experiences in which they take part (Moore
and Gajo 2009). The difference lies in the wider range of linguistic resources (language
codes and practices) on which multilinguals may draw to communicate. Bell, whose
approach is audience-centred, underscores the similarities between monolingual stylistic
diversity and multilingual communication:

It has long been realized that the sociolinguistic processes which make a monolingual
speaker shift styles are similar to those that make a bilingual switch languages (e.g. Gumperz
1967). The bilingual is dependent on the availability of the two languages in the speech
community at large, and in an interlocutor’s passive repertoire, for language switch to be
available in the individual speaker’s repertoire. Analogously, the monolingual depends on a
 174 M. Paquet-Gauthier and S. Beaulieu

linguistic variable being used differently among speakers in the community to make it
socially evaluated and available for the individual speaker to style-shift. The bilingual
situation simply sharpens the process and makes it more visible (Bell 1984, 158).

In this perspective, it is especially important to stress the fact that, in our view, the
resources of multilinguals are not neatly separated in different linguistic systems, but
rather form a complete repertoire where constituents present combination regularities and
affinities, according to the individual’s linguistic experiences. And just as with
monolinguals, even literate multilinguals may not be able to fully use the potential of
conceptional distance, and discrepancies between their intended communicative output
and effective conceptional performance may arise. As a result, what has been traditionally
considered as ‘deviant’ forms in Lx might be caused by a lack of exposure, practice or
participation in a specific language form on the continuum.7
Another potential explanation for these ‘deviant’ forms is that since most multilingual
speakers engage more or less regularly in communicative situations involving some kind
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

of code-meshing (see e.g. Gardner-Chloros 1991; Kühl 2011; Li 2011), they show greater
tolerance towards ‘non-standard’ usage, be it in their Lx or native language (see e.g.
Laufer 2003; Jarvis 2003; Dewaele and Li 2014a). The diversity and degree of code-
meshing used by speakers has been linked to the level of formality of the situation and
familiarity with other participants. For example, Lx learners tend to code-mesh more in
informal than in formal interviews (Dewaele 2001b), and informal settings encourage
multilinguals to code-mesh more intensively (Gardner-Chloros 1991, 186; 2009, 4).
Results from a case study on the use of dialectal or non-standard features (Martin,
Chevrot, and Barbu 2010) also suggest that children can assess the appropriateness of
these features according to their interlocutors. Thus, the more informal the situation is, the
more there are possibilities for code-meshing to occur. Conversely, the more formal the
situation is, the less likely it is that code-meshing will be used.

A model for multilingual communicative situations

Based upon the contextual and situational similarities between conceptional immediacy
and multilingual communications, we propose to modify and adapt the model presented
by Koch and Oesterreicher (2001) in order to integrate a third dimension representing
multilingual communicative behaviours. This additional dimension is used to illustrate
how monolinguals and multilinguals rely on a variety of strategies to communicate in
different situations (e.g. registers and styles), highlighting the fact that multilinguals may
make use of more than one language according to situations and participants. The original
continuum is represented on the X and Z axes, and the new, multilingual communicative
dimension on the Y axis.
We will now demonstrate the affinities between immediacy, phonic code and
multilingual communications, which are illustrated by the width at the left end of the
continuum. Similarly, we will argue that the presence of multilingual usage in contexts of
relative distance is unlikely, which is represented by the quasi null width of the multilingual
dimension at the opposite end of the continuum.
When taking part in communicative situations with unknown or unfamiliar
participants (parameters of conceptional distance), multilinguals must rely on what is
supposed to be shared by all participants, that is, a single language used appropriately for
situations of communicative distance). They must therefore avoid code-meshing, to the
best of their knowledge (for example, see Dewaele and Li 2014b, 234). This type of
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 175
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

Figure 2. Pluridimensional continuum.

communicative situation corresponds to point n°1 on Figure 2. As we have highlighted,

this knowledge is brought about by the speakers’ communicative experiences. In this
sense, situations of conceptional distance require more elaboration and planning from
multilinguals as they have to limit – as best they can – forms and/or practices that are
familiar to them but not necessarily to other participants. Moreover, in the absence of
immediate or spontaneous feedback, speakers cannot ascertain their hearers’ linguistic
normativism or attitude towards code-meshing practices, and have to adopt generally
accepted forms and practices in order to avoid unwanted emotional implications.
However, when communicating with close relations or friends with whom they share
only one language, multilingual speakers rely on language of immediacy in but one
language – as best they can. This communicative situation corresponds to point n°2 on
Figure 2. For multilinguals, it follows that monolingual usage does not necessarily entail
language of distance, but language of distance requires monolingual usage.
The affinities between multilingual communicative situations and conceptional
immediacy may be established on the basis that both are characterised by spontaneity,
necessitate high implicit knowledge, familiarity, and cooperation between participants
(see also Dewaele and Li 2014b, 234). In addition, they are more often associated with
communications of a dialogic nature. The perceived complicity between participants
sharing (or partially sharing) two or more linguistic codes allows them to make use more
freely of the creative combinatory possibilities of these codes (contact-induced neolo-
gisms, insertions, alternations, etc.). Furthermore, linguistic normativism and attitudes
towards code-meshing practices are better assessed in contexts of relative immediacy,
enabling the negotiation of features and practices acceptable to all participants.
Hesitations and reformulations, typical of conceptional immediacy, seem moreover to
be an important locus of code-meshing. When speakers cannot spontaneously formulate
the word or expression in one language, they may resort to a word or expression in
another language.
The following excerpts of spontaneous conversations between multilinguals illustrate
multilingual communicative behaviours. Example 2 shows hesitation with lexical
insertion and reformulation (insertion in English, reformulation in French), and Example
3, hesitation followed by a change of language (from French to Alsacian):
 176 M. Paquet-Gauthier and S. Beaulieu

Example 2 (French minority speakers in Canada)

P : pis j’ai tombé d’ssus comme ça mais j’ai tombé comme ça (.) comme ça pis j? l’coude et
pis euh ça fait mal ici là ça fait mal en haut icitte fait que j’mets un euh le tensor euh pas le
tensor mais euh l’velcro là tsé
(and I fell on it like that but I fell like that (.) like that and I? the elbow and then euh it hurts
here it hurts up here so I put on a euh the tensor euh not the tensor but euh the velcro you
know what I mean)
D : ouin
(yeah)
P : L’affére pour le g’nou là
(The thing for the knee)
D : Ok
(Beaulieu 2012, 79)

Example 3 (French and Alsacian)

[D]u bekommsch do e fätze … je sais pas dans quelle graisse
(you get some sort of scraps … in goodness knows what sort of fat)
… avec quoi: avec de de de was weiss denn de teiffel
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

(… with what: with the the the the devil knows what)
(Gardner-Chloros 1991, 124)

In communicative situations presenting similar conceptional parameters, multilinguals may

adapt the type and intensity of code-meshing they use depending on their perception of the
linguistic knowledge and attitude they share with the other participants. An illustration of
this can be found in Beaulieu (forthcoming). This corpus consists of recordings of medical
consultations conducted in French between a bilingual doctor (French–English, French-
minority speaker) and his patients. While the doctor wants to establish a certain complicity
with his patients, the consultations take place in a professional context where he assumes a
role of authority. On the conceptional immediacy-distance continuum, this communicative
situation is of relative immediacy: the language the doctor uses presents certain features of
immediacy (traces of reformulations and hesitations, syntactic juxtaposition rather than
subordination, dislocations, holophrases and incomplete sentences, etc.). What determines
the increased use of code-meshing is the extension of his perceived shared linguistic
knowledge and attitudes with these patients (see Beaulieu, forthcoming). Three distinct
general linguistic behaviours were observed.

. When treating a recent immigrant (Lx French and English): use of English
syntactic and semantic influences.8
. When treating L1 French-majority speakers native of a different area: use of
English syntactic and semantic influences and established English loans (in
Canadian French).
. When treating L1 French-minority speakers native of the area: use of English
syntactic and semantic influences, frequent lexical insertions and hybrid combina-
tions of constituents.

Thus, the presence/type of code-meshing is related 1– to the speaker’s assessment of the

conceptional immediacy-distance parameters of the communicative situation, and 2– to
the speaker’s evaluation of the participants’ linguistic knowledge and attitudes.
Looking again at the examples given in Table 2 to illustrate the continuum between
conceptional immediacy and distance, it follows from what has been presented that
multilingual communications are far more likely to occur in the top four situations. These
situations display the conceptional immediacy parameters we have highlighted as
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 177

Table 2. Situations illustrating the continuum of conceptional immediacy and distance.

Immediacy A spontaneous conversion between close relations/friends
A phone call between close relations/friends
A conversion between colleagues
A personal letter to a close relations/friends
A job interview
An interview published in a newspaper
A sermon
A scientific presentation
A feature article
Distance A legislative enactment
Source: Koch and Oesterreicher (2001).

enabling the speaker’s evaluation of the participants’ linguistic knowledge and attitudes:
private communication, familiarity between speaker and hearer, high emotionality, context
and referential situation embeddedness, and (except for situations akin to writing a personal
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

letter to a friend) spatial or temporal copresence, intense communicative cooperation, and

dialogue. It also follows that, in situations of greater distance such as the last six mentioned
in Table 2, the use of overt code-meshing is not only unlikely, but may very well be
unacceptable. Thus, not only receptive, but also productive knowledge of forms of
monolingual usage is essential for situations presenting conceptional distance parameters:
public communication, lack of familiarity between participants, low emotionality,
situational and referential situation detachment, spatial or temporal separation, minimal
communicative cooperation, monologue and prepared or elaborate communication.
The diversity of communicative situations monolinguals and multilinguals have to
face requires them to develop multicontextual communicative expertise. For multi-
linguals, this expertise includes knowledge of language of distance, in L1 and Lx. In this
perspective, the problem with monolingual or native-like norm is not that it is taught in
Lx classes, but that only a very ‘situated variety’ (Guérin 2008) of monolingual, native
usage (i.e. a ‘standard’) is taught. Attempting to oust monolingual norm from Lx teaching
deprives students from essential communicative resources in situations of conceptional
distance, just as the exclusive teaching of standard written monolingual norm does not
prepare students to communicate in situations of conceptional immediacy. We believe the
turn Lx classrooms must take is one that would present to students a wider scope of
situated language usage in order for them to make informed decisions on their linguistic
behaviours.

Can Lx classrooms take the multilingual turn?

Proponents of the multilingual turn have invited SLA researchers and Lx teachers to
abandon the monolingual native speaker yardstick in favour of multicompetence.
However, this proposed shift has had little impact on Lx teaching practices. We have
argued that since multicompetence has not been precisely defined and is by nature
idiosyncratic, it can hardly serve as a new model. Moreover, the language to be
transmitted to learners in an Lx classroom that would have taken the turn has not been
described or specified so far.
Using the model Koch and Oesterreicher (2001) have proposed and adapting it to
integrate multilingual communications, we have demonstrated that multicompetent
speakers face a variety of communicative situations, both with monolingual and
 178 M. Paquet-Gauthier and S. Beaulieu

multilingual participants, and that these situations call for different linguistic behaviours.
Hence, in our opinion, if a multilingual turn is to take place, it should not entail the
simple and categorical rejection of monolingual and standard norms, but rather introduce
the notion of situated mono – and multilingual usage.
A first step in that direction would imply that language practitioners (curriculum and
textbook designers, teachers, etc.) adopt a broader and more comprehensive view of
language and languages, one that situates standard usage instead of promoting it as the
only acceptable language usage. The diversity of usage inherent to languages and the
diversity of usage inherent to multilingualism would be addressed in an informed way so
as to pay more attention to the dynamic and symbolic values of language features in real-
life contexts. Standard norms would be presented as appropriate and expected in
situations of conceptional distance. These forms would be practiced and evaluated
through tasks that reflect the contextual and situational parameters of distance; for
example, learners would be asked to prepare a formal presentation for an unfamiliar
audience. In addition, since the aim of current language-teaching methodologies is to
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

prepare learners for real-life situations, teachers would encourage the development of
receptive and productive knowledge of monolingual language of immediacy. Pedagogical
initiatives in that direction already exist, for example, the explicit teaching of connected
speech phenomena (Blanchet and Kennedy 2015; Brown and Hilferty 2007) or socio-
pragmatic usage (Low, Derwing, and Abbott 2010; van Compernolle 2010), but still
represent the exception (Etienne and Sax 2009; Mougeon, Nadasdi, and Rehner 2002).
In our view, multilingual usage, as a language of immediacy, should not be the aim of
explicit language teaching. Its idiosyncratic and contextually situated nature makes it
difficult to generalise, as code-meshing practices are typically negotiated among a small
group of participants. This does not entail that we endorse a view where Lx classrooms
are conducted in the target Lx only. Research in bilingual education (see e.g. Creese and
Blackledge 2010; Cummins 2007; Hornberger 2005) has convincingly demonstrated that
allowing learners to code-mesh as a cognitive tool enhances their overall language
learning, such as code-meshing to reflect on language practices, to make sense of the
requested task, to compare and analyse differences and similarities between languages.
Classroom-based research on the effective use of code-meshing as a cognitive language-
teaching tool is a topic that needs to be further investigated.

Conclusion
The approach outlined in this article is proposed as a way to reconcile the monolingual
and multilingual competence theoretical divide. We believe that the diversity of language
usage should no longer be excluded from Lx teaching. By presenting communicative
situations on a continuum between immediacy and distance, it is possible to situate where
monolingual and multilingual usage are expected and accepted. Departing from
traditional and misleading oppositions between standard and non-standard, correct and
incorrect, and native and non-native usage, has allowed us to present what we believe are
operationalisable solutions for adopting multicompetence and developing multicontextual
communicative expertise in Lx classrooms.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and feedback. We also wish
to thank Dr Bruno Courbon and Kendall Vogh for reading the earlier draft of this article and for
their useful suggestions.
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 179

Notes
1. We use multilingualism in keeping with the terminological choices made by proponents of the
multilingual turn although our proposal has more in common with the definition of
plurilingualism proposed by Moore and Gajo (2009): ‘the study of individuals’ repertoires
and agency in several languages’ (138).
2. Adopting Lx also has limitations; our solution is only temporary, as the question of defining
what the ‘L’ stands for is fundamental, though it has been neglected in Applied Linguistics.
The questions as to what researchers mean by ‘language’ and how the meaning of this term is
differentiated from that of ‘dialect’ need to be seriously addressed, and prior assumptions
challenged. The theoretical contributions of Coseriu (see e.g. 2001) and Nyckees (see e.g.
2006, 2007) are stimulating avenues of reflexion on the individual and collective dimensions
of language and language use. The present article has a more modest objective and is only
presented as a small step in the reflexion on the dynamics of language, language use, and
multilingualism.
3. However, it is also especially important to stress the fact that we distinguish between the
collective and the individual dimensions of language, although both are in an interdependent
relationship, so that small, imperceptible changes on the individual level of language use
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

affect the collective level, thus triggering linguistic change. As socio-historical constructs
(collective), languages and to a certain extent dialects, function as separate entities, but not
when seen as a ‘system’ in the speaker’s mind (individual). In this ‘system’, constituents (i.e.
lexemes and morphemes) have meaning(s) and provide endless combination possibilities to
form words. These elements may not necessarily be tied to a specific socio-historical
construct, both individually and collectively. For example, the verb catcher in Québec French
is formed of catch (lexeme of English origin, GRASP, SEIZE, RECEIVE) and -er (French
morpheme, first group infinitive verb ending). In Québec French, catch belongs to a paradigm
including attrap-, pogn-, pig-, etc. (‘catch’, ‘grasp’, ‘draw’ etc., all possibly used with the
figurative meaning UNDERSTAND), that can be combined with -er to form a regular verb.
4. We adopt diversity of language usage as a less ideologically charged terminology than
variation, as the latter may imply the reality of a mean, a ‘correct’ form from which all
variations deviate (for a discussion on this issue from a lexicographical perspective, see
Courbon 2012).
5. The idea of a continuum between oral and written text is not new. Among others, Biber (1986)
has proposed five factors permitting an analysis along three different dimensions (interactive
vs. edited text, abstract vs. situated content, and reported vs. immediate style). Koch and
Oesterreicher’s model, while similar in spirit, is in our view more comprehensive and
economical; it encompasses all of Biber’s dimensions along a single communicative
immediacy and distance continuum.
6. Although each parameter presented here corresponds to the continuum’s extremes, the
evaluation they allow is progressive from communicative immediacy to distance, except for
the spatial/temporal parameter: one is either physically present or not, a conversation is either
synchronous or not.
7. In the case of pronunciation, the causes are likely to be from a different origin. As research on
very advanced Lx learners has demonstrated that few can match L1 pronunciation scores (see
e.g. Granena and Long 2013), it would seem that the presence of an ‘accent’ is almost
inevitable.
8. Although English syntactic and semantic influences are characteristical of the French used
throughout Canada, even by monolinguals (see e.g. Paquet-Gauthier, forthcoming; Courbon
and Paquet-Gauthier 2014), these influences are especially present in the varieties spoken
West of Quebec because of the intense contact situation (see Mougeon and Beniak 1991;
Beaulieu 2012, 78–79).

References
Abrahamsson, Niclas, and Kenneth Hyltenstam. 2009. “Age of Onset and Nativelikeness in a
Second Language: Listener Perception Versus Linguistic Scrutiny.” Language Learning
59: 249–306. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00507.x.
Auger, Julie. 2002. “French Immersion in Montréal: Pedagogical Norm and Functional Compet-
ence.” In Pedagogical Norms for Second and Foreign Language Learning and Teaching, edited
 180 M. Paquet-Gauthier and S. Beaulieu

by Susan Gass, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig, Sally Sieloff Magnan, and Joel Walz, 81–101.
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Beaulieu, S. Forthcoming. “Nurse-patient Interactions in French as a Minority Setting.” Corpus
Collected for Dissertation.
Beaulieu, S. 2012. “Towards a Sociolinguistically Informed Pedagogy: French for L2 Nursing
Students in Alberta.” PhD diss., University of Alberta.
Bell, Allan. 1984. “Language Style as Audience Design.” Language in Society 13 (2): 145–204.
doi:10.1017/S004740450001037X.
Biber, Douglas. 1986. “Spoken and Written Textual Dimensions in English: Resolving the
Contradictory Findings.” Language 62 (2): 384–414. doi:10.1017/S004740450001037X.
Blanchet, Josée, and Sara Kennedy. 2015. “Décodage et compréhension de la langue courrante:
enseigner les variantes morphosyntaxiques [Decoding and Understanding of Everyday
Language: Teaching Morphosyntactic Variation].” Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Toronto, March 2015.
Brown, Amanda. 2013. “Multicompetence and Second Language Assessment.” Language
Assessment Quarterly 10 (2): 219–235. doi:10.1080/15434303.2013.769551.
Brown, J. Dean, and Ann Hilferty. 2007. “The Effectiveness of Teaching Reduced Forms for
Listening Comprehension.” In Perspectives on Teaching Connected Speech to Second Language
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

Speakers, edited by J. K.-B. Brown, 51–58. Honolulu, HI: National Foreogn Language Resource
Center, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
Bylund, Emmanuel, Niclas Abrahamsson, and Kenneth Hyltenstam. 2012. “Does First Language
Maintenance Hamper Nativelikeness in a Second Language?” Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 34 (2): 215–241. doi:10.1017/S0272263112000034.
Cenoz, Jasone, and Durk Gorter. 2011. “Focus on Multilingualism: A Study of Trilingual Writing.”
The Modern Language Journal 95 (3): 356–369. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01206.x.
Cook, Vivian. 1991. “The Poverty-of-the-Stimulus Argument and Multicompetence.” Second
Language Research 7 (2): 103–117. doi:10.1177/026765839100700203.
Cook, Vivian. 2007. “The Nature of the L2 User.” Eurosla Yearbook 7 (1): 205–220. doi:10.1075/
eurosla.7.12coo.
Coseriu, Eugenio. 2001. L’homme et son langage [On Man and His Language]. Louvain: Éditions
Peeters.
Courbon, Bruno 2012. “Représenter la diversité linguistique dans un dictionnaire monolingue: de la
“traduction interne” à l'intégration sémantique.” In Dictionnaires et traduction, edited by
Michaela. Heinz, 153–196. Honolulu, HI: National Foreogn Language Resource Center,
University of Hawai’i at Manoa.
Courbon, Bruno, and Myriam Paquet-Gauthier. 2014. “Faux amis/vrais ennemis: réutilisations de la
notion d’anglicisme dans le discours métalinguistique au Québec [False Friends/Real Enemies:
Uses of the Notion of ‘Anglicism’ in Metalinguistic Discourse in Québec].” Le discours et la
langue, numéro thématique Métalangage et expression du sentiment linguistique “profane”,
143–173.
Creese, Angela, and Adrian Blackledge. 2010. “Translanguaging in the Bilingual Classroom:
A Pedagogy for Learning and Teaching?” The Modern Language Journal 94 (1): 103–115.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00986.x.
Crystal, David. 2001. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cummins, Jim. 2007. “Rethinking Monolingual Instructional Strategies in Multilingual Class-
rooms.” Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 10: 221–240.
Dagenais, Diane, Françoise Armand, Nathalie Walsh, and Érica Maraillet. 2007. “L’Éveil aux
langues et la coconstruction de connaissances sur la diversité linguistique [Éveil Aux Langues
and the Co-Construction of Knowledge on Linguistic Diversity].” Canadian Journal of Applied
Linguistics 10 (2): 197–219.
DeKeyser, Robert M. 2013. “Age Effects in Second Language Learning: Stepping Stones toward
Better Understanding.” Language Learning 63 (1): 52–67. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00
737.x.
Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2001a. “Une Distinction Mesurable: Corpus oraux et écrits sur le continuum
de la deixis [A Measurable Distinction: Oral and Writen Corpora on the Continuum of Deixis].”
French Language Studies 11: 179–199.
Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2001b. “Activation or Inhibition? The Interaction of L1, L2 and L3 on the
Language Mode Continuum.” In Cross-Linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition:
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 181

Psycholinguistic Perspectives, edited by Jasone Cenoz, Britta Hufeisen, and Ulrike Jessner,
69–89. Buffalo, CO: Multilingual Matters.
Dewaele, Jean-Marc, and Wei Li. 2014a. “Attitudes towards Code-Switching among Adult Mono-
and Multilingual Language Users.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 35
(3): 235–251.
Dewaele, Jean-Marc, and Wei Li. 2014b. “Intra- and Inter-individual Variation in Self-Reported
Code-switching Patterns of Adult Multilinguals.” International Journal of Multilingualism
11 (2): 225–246.
Durán, Richard, and George McCool. 2003. “If This is French, then What Did I Learn in School?”
The French Review 77: 288–299.
Etienne, Corine, and Kelly J. Sax. 2009. “Stylistic Variation in French: Bridging the Gap between
Research and Textbooks.” The Modern Language Journal 93 (4): 584–606. doi:10.1111/j.
1540–4781.2009.00931.x.
Eyquem-Lebon, Mylène. 2010. “Évolution et impact de l’école et de l’environnement social sur les
usages de 4 enfants de 3 ans en milieu créole [Evolution and Impact of School and Social
Environment on the Language Uses of 4 3-year Old Children in Creole Environment].” Congrès
Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF 1: 1877–1895. doi:10.1051/cmlf/2010224.
Gadet, Françoise, and Emmanuelle Guérin. 2008. “Le couple oral / écrit dans une sociolinguistique
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

à visée didactique [Oral/Written Opposition in Sociolinguistics with Pedagogical Purposes].” Le

Français Aujourd’hui 162: 21–27. doi:10.3917/lfa.162.0021.
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. 1991. Language Selection and Switching in Strasbourg. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gardner-Chloros, Penelope. 2009. Code-Switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Granena, Gisela, and Michael Long. 2013. “Age of Onset, Length of Residence, Language Aptitude,
and Ultimate L2 Attainment in three Linguistic Domains.” Second Language Research 29 (3):
311–343. doi:10.1177/0267658312461497.
Guérin, Emmanuelle. 2008. “Le’français standard’: une variété située? [Standard French: A Situated
Variety?] ” In Actes du Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française [Proceedings of the
International Congress of French Linguistics], edited by Jacques Durand, Benoît Habert, and
Bernard Laks, 2303–2312. Paris: EDP Sciences.
Guérin, Emmanuelle. 2011. “Sociolinguistique et didactique du français: Une interaction nécessaire
[Sociolinguistics and the Teaching of French: Necessary Interactions].” Le Français Aujourd’-
hui 3: 139–144. doi:10.3917/lfa.174.0139.
Gumperz, John J. 1967. “On the Linguistic Markers of Bilingual Communication.” Journal of
Social Issues 23 (2): 48–57. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1967.tb00575.x.
Hall, Joan Kelly, An Cheng, and Matthew Carlson. 2006. “Reconceptualizing Multicompetence as a
Theory of Language Knowledge.” Applied Linguistics 27 (2): 220–240. doi:10.1093/applin/
aml013.
Hammarberg, Björn. 2010. “The Languages of the Multilingual: Some Conceptual and Termino-
logical Issues.” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 48 (2–3):
91–104. doi:10.1515/iral.2010.005.
Hawkins, Eric. 1974. “Modern Languages in the Curriculum.” In The Space between: English and
Foreign Languages at School, edited by George Perren, 206–223. London: CILT.
Hornberger, Nancy H. 2005. “Opening and Filling up Implementational and Ideological Spaces in
Heritage Language Education.” The Modern Language Journal 89 (4): 605–609.
Jarvis, Scott. 2003. “Probing the Effects of the L2 on the L1: A Case Study.” In Effects of the
Second Language on the First, edited by Vivian Cook, 81–102. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Jarvis, Scott, and Aneta Pavlenko. 2008. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition.
New York: Routledge.
Koch, Peter, and Wulf Oesterreicher. 1985. “Sprache der Nähe–Sprache der Distanz [Language of
Immediacy, Language of Distance].” Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43.
Koch, Peter, and Wulf Oesterreicher. 2001. “Langage parlé et langage écrit [Spoken Language and
Writen Language].” In Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik [Encyclopeadia of Romanist
Linguistics], T.1, edited by Günter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin, and Christian Schmitt, 584–627.
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Koch, Peter, and Wulf Oesterreicher. 2011. Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch,
Italienisch, Spanisch [Roman Spoken Languages: French, Italian, Spanish]. Vol. 31. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
 182 M. Paquet-Gauthier and S. Beaulieu

Kroll, Judith F., and Paola E. Dussias. 2013. “The Comprehension of Words and Sentences in Two
Languages.” In The Handbook of Bilingualism and Multilingualism, 2nd ed., edited by Tej K.
Bathia and William C. Ritchie, 216–243. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Kühl, Karoline H. 2011. “Faroe-Danish Language of Distance.” In Multilingual Discourse
Production: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives Vol. 12, edited by Svenja Kranich, Viktor
Becher, Steffen House, and Jan Höder, 183–205. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2007. “Reflecting on the Cognitive–Social Debate in Second Language
Acquisition.” The Modern Language Journal 91: 773–787. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00
668.x.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2013. “Complexity Theory.” In The Routledge Handbook of Second
Language Acquisition, edited by Susan M. Gass and Alison Mackey, 73–87. New York:
Routledge.
Laufer, Batia. 2003. “The Influence of the L2 in L1 Collocational Knowledge and on L1 Diversity
in Free Written Expression.” In Effects of the Second Language on the First, edited by Vivian
Cook, 19–31. Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Leung, Constant, Roxy Harris, and Ben Rampton. 1997. “The Idealised Native Speaker, Reified
Ethnicities, and Classroom Realities.” Tesol Quarterly 31 (3): 543–560. doi:10.2307/3587837.
Li, Wei. 2011. “Multilinguality, Multimodality, and Multicompetence: Code‐and Modeswitching by
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016

Minority Ethnic Children in Complementary Schools.” The Modern Language Journal 95 (3):
370–384. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01209.x.
Low, Kerry, Tracy Derwing, and Marilyn Abbott. 2010. “Teaching Pragmatics to L2 Learners for
the Workplace: The Job Interview.” Canadian Modern Language Review 66 (5): 737–755.
Lüdi, Georges, and Bernard Py. 2009. “To Be or Not to Be … a Plurilingual Speaker.” International
Journal of Multilingualism 6 (2): 154–167. doi:10.1080/14790710902846715.
Martin, Nathaël, Jean-Pierre Chevrot, and Stéphanie Barbu. 2010. “Research Note Stylistic
Variations in the Social Network of a 10‐year‐old Child: Pragmatic Adjustments or Automatic
Alignment?” Journal of Sociolinguistics 14 (5): 678–692. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.004
59.x.
May, Stephen, ed. 2013. The Multilingual Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual
Education. New York: Routledge.
Meissner, Franz-Joseph. 2003. EuroComRom-les sept tamis: lire les langues romanes dès le départ;
avec une introduction à la didactique de l’eurocompréhension [EuroComRom-les sept tamis:
Reading Roman Languages Right away, with an Introduction to Eurocomprehension Didactics].
Aachen: Editiones EuroCom.
Michael-Luna, Sara, and Suresh Canagarajah. 2007. “Multilingual Academic Literacies: Pedago-
gical Foundations for Code Meshing in Primary and Higher Education.” Journal of Applied
Linguistics 4 (1): 55–77. doi:10.1558/japl.v4i1.55.
Milroy, James. 2001. “Language Ideologies and the Consequences of Standardization.” Journal of
Sociolinguistics 5 (4): 530–555. doi:10.1111/1467-9481.00163.
Moore, Danièle, and Laurent Gajo. 2009. “Introduction–French Voices on Plurilingualism and
Pluriculturalism: Theory, Significance and Perspectives.” International Journal of Multi-
lingualism 6 (2): 137–153. doi:10.1080/14790710902846707.
Mougeon, Raymond, and Edouard Beniak. 1991. Linguistic Consequences of Language Contact
and Restriction: The Case of French in Ontario. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mougeon, Raymond, Terry Nadasdi, and Katherine Rehner. 2002. “L’acquisition de la variation par
les apprenants du français langue seconde [The Acquisition of Variation by FLS learners].”
Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère 17: 7–50.
Nyckees, Vincent. 2006. “Rien n’est sans raison: Les bases d’une théorie continuiste de l’évolution
sémantique [Nothing is Without Reason. Bases for a Continuist Theory of Semantic
Evolution].” In Aspects diachroniques du vocabulaire [Diachronic Aspects of Vocabulary],
edited by François Gaudin and Danielle Candel, 15–88. Mont-Saint-Aignan: Publications des
Universités de Rouen et du Havre.
Nyckees, Vincent. 2007. “La cognition humaine saisie par le langage: De la sémantique cognitive
au médiationnisme [Human Cognition through Language: From Cognitive Semantics to
Mediationism].” Corela HS-6. http://corela.revues.org/1538.
Ortega, Lourdes. 2010. “The Blingual Turn in SLA.” Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual
Education, Atlanta, GA, March.
 Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 183

Ortega, Lourdes. 2013. “Ways Forward for a Bi3multilingual Turn in SLA.” In The Multilingual
Turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL, and Bilingual Education, edited by Stephen May, 32–52.
New York: Routledge.
Paquet-Gauthier, Myriam. Forthcoming. Ouvrages normatifs et “anglicismes sémantiques” à l’heure
des grands corpus informatisés. Les Journées de linguistique Actes du XXVIIIe colloque,
Québec, Canada, March 6–7, 2014.
Rampton, Ben. 1995. Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. 2nd ed. Manchester:
St. Jerome.
van Compernolle, Rémi.A. 2010. “Towards a Sociolinguistically Responsive Pedagogy: Teaching
Second-person Address Forms in French.” Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue
canadienne des langues vivantes 66 (3): 445–463. doi:10.3138/cmlr.66.3.445.
Downloaded by [187.137.12.254] at 11:58 22 April 2016